Factors influencing the citation behavior of Pakistani novice LIS researchers

Abstract

This study aims to understand the citation behavior of LIS research graduates in terms of their citation practices, citation motivation with the perceived quality and trustworthiness of cited sources. The paper endeavors to gain an insight into their citation behavior to gender, age, qualification, and publications. An online questionnaire survey was conducted in July 2020 to collect data from researchers who have been studying or completed their research degrees from the Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore-Pakistan. Data showed that almost half of the researchers published articles in journals. They preferred to cite: the most recent sources, articles written by reputable authors, highly cited sources, and articles which contain high-quality references. Researchers were motivated to cite open access and impact factor journals. There was no significant relationship between gender and any of the variables of citation behavior. However, only qualification affected the citation motivation of novice researchers. The findings may guide the policymakers about fund allocation to research projects.

Keywords

Citation behavior citation motivation demographic factors factors affecting citation behavior Pakistan quality and trustworthiness of cited sources

Introduction

Citation behavior reveals not only the authors’ intention for citing particular scholarly document/s but also assists in evaluating the research process. Citation practices help to understand the researchers’ behavior by analyzing the content or context of the citation as to why the researchers choose to cite or not to cite particular works as they document their research activity. Citation behavior does include an acknowledgment of intellectual content; however, this process cannot be separated from the researcher’s position in network trusted social and research influence. Further, the researchers do regard the quality and trustworthiness of cited sources in choosing to cite (Thornley et al., 2015).

Previous literature revealed that citation-related studies have been conducted from different angles such as modeling the citation behavior (Mingers and Burrell, 2006); citation behavior models (Nadarajah and Kotz, 2007); citation analysis (Raza and Warraich, 2022; Sharif and Mahmood, 2004). Becker and Chiware (2015) reported that doctoral students preferred to cite recent electronic journals however masters students’ preferred monographs for citation purposes. Stephens et al. (2013) reported citation behavior of faculty members and they identified that journals were the favorite information source which has been followed by conferences. Books and book chapters were the third most cited information source. The study showed that faculty members preferred to cite the most recent source and they utilized the material of other disciplines/fields for their research purposes.

A recent study by Raza and Warraich (2022) explored the citation patterns of information management research graduates who submitted their theses during 2008–2017 in the University of the Punjab, Lahore. Citation analysis of 7013 identified references from 71 theses were conducted. Findings showed that both male and female research graduates frequently consulted and cited periodical literature, that is, journals (58.71%) followed by books and book chapters (20.72%). The authorship pattern of the citations showed the highest number of citations from single-authored work. Bradford’s law of dispersion was used to determine the list of core cited information sources with several citations used by research graduates. Another study by Warraich and Ahmad (2011) conducted the bibliometric analysis of a Pakistani only LIS journal, Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries (PJIM&L), indexed in Scopus and ranked in X category of Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. It analyzed different parameters of the journal including number of citation used per article, length of papers, and authors’ collaboration.

Ameen (2017) conducted a study to investigate the citation practices of researchers through the quantitative method. Researchers used a questionnaire for data collection. Major findings of the study revealed that Pakistani researchers feel confident in citing open access journals. They considered peer-reviewed journals important as compared to impact factor journals while taking into consideration the trustworthiness of sources for citation purposes. They disagreed about the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They also disagreed in giving importance to ease of access as compared to quality. They disagreed with not citing open access journals due to low quality.

Although, over the years, plenty of literature has been published around the world to demonstrate the different aspects of citation analysis such as: making lists of core-cited material; to improve collection development; to analyzing the information behavior and research skills of students for assessment of library holdings, etc. Some studies have also through their emphasis to understand the needs of a specific users group such as graduate or undergraduate students and judge their citation behavior regarding the usage of the library resources. Therefore, in the Pakistani context, up until now it is one of the least explored areas of research and no comprehensive study has been conducted on this topic, so there is a need to conduct a study that explores the citing practices of the researchers to understand their citing behavior.

This study aims to identify the citation practices, citation motivation with the quality and trustworthiness of cited sources among novice LIS researchers in Pakistan. It also explores the factors affecting behavior in terms of citation practices, citation motivation, and the quality and trustworthiness of cited resources. Based on the objectives following research were formed:

What are the citation practices employed by novice LIS researchers in Pakistan?

What factors affected the citation motivation of novice LIS researchers?

How do novice LIS researchers perceive the quality and trustworthiness of cited resources?

What is the effect of personal factors (gender, age, qualification, and publications) on citation behavior in terms of citation practices, citation motivation, and perceived quality and trustworthiness of cited sources?

Problem statement

It is fact that citations have a key role in scientific research writings. Without citing relevant sources, it is not possible to develop theoretical knowledge in any domain/field of knowledge. Journal’s quality measuring indicators are primarily based on citation counts and other citation metrics.

Although citation practices and behavior in different disciplines have been measured globally in the extant literature, but few studies were conducted in Pakistan to explore citation practices (Ameen, 2017) and citation analysis (Raza and Warraich, 2022; Sharif and Mahmood, 2004).

However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to measure citation practices of LIS researchers in Pakistan. Due to the growing number of LIS literature of Pakistani authors at the national and international level, it is imperative to investigate the citation behavior of Pakistani LIS scholars and it is also necessary to know the factors that affect citation behavior.

Literature review

The citation has great value in academic work and there are many reasons to employ citations. Mansourizadeh and Ahmad (2011) exhibit the value and reasons of citation in the following way.

“Research writers employ citations with various rhetorical functions: to position their research in the right context; to show the significance and relevance of their research; to demonstrate their competence in their research field; to exhibit the adequacy and accuracy of methodology and procedures; to prove the legitimacy of their claims; to establish their argument and justify their findings, and ultimately, to persuade readers to accept their new claims as scientific facts and thus contribute to new knowledge based on prior knowledge within the field. Our study has proven that citations are employed differently by expert writers when compared to novice writers” (p. 160).

Xu et al. (2020) reported that the majority of Chinese researchers used Open Access Journals (OAJs) for citation and they trust OAJs for reading and citing. Abdullah et al. (2016) investigated the citation practices of Malaysian researchers. They identified five major citation practices of Malaysian researchers. Malaysian researchers tend to cite the most recent sources relevant to the topic, highly cited sources, articles written by reputable authors, sources containing high-quality references, and seminal work. Garzone and Mercer (2000) reported that researchers most frequently cited the documents of renowned scholars by whom they were strongly influenced/impressed and that supported their views, whereas, citation for critical purposes received a relatively low percentage. Tenopir et al. (2016) investigated the citation practices of a large-scale survey consisting of seven regions worldwide. They listed respondents’ top practices in citation were; the currency of sources, seminal sources, and highly cited sources. Other characteristics of citation practices were: sources relevant to the topic, citing material from books, newspaper articles, citing government documents, and sources that contain contrary arguments as compared to their work. The “least characteristic” citation practices were not peer-reviewed and open peer-reviewed sources.

The development in technology opened new ways for publishing such as self-publishing in the form of blogs, social media, and media publication in the form of a newspaper/s. In these publishing avenues, there are not any peer review criteria based on subject experts. Researchers were motivated to use non-peer-reviewed or less academic sources due to providing useful information to their readers. But it is rare to cite non-peer-reviewed sources. The use of social media sources among researchers was also found only for updating knowledge not for citing published work (Thornley et al., 2015). Despite the changes in the mode of accessing scholarly material, the criteria of trustworthiness and the quality of scholarly sources are still traditional. There are different factors for the trustworthiness of scholarly sources. These factors are the author’s credibility, the name of a journal, and the quality of contents. They further stated high-rated factors for deciding the trustworthiness of scholarly sources. These decision factors were the quality and soundness of contents and ideas, quality of tables and figures, and the reading of abstracts for credibility point of view (Tenopir et al., 2016). Jamali et al. (2014) identified that “scholars from developing countries such as India and China, compared to those from developed countries such as USA and UK, rely more on authority, brand and reputation as proxies for trustworthiness and credibility of research” (p. 201). Abdullah et al. (2016) identified citation practices of Malaysian researchers regarding the quality and trustworthiness of sources. The majority of the researchers have no problem inciting open access peer-reviewed journals and they prefer to cite open access articles published by reputable publishers. Respondents agree that open access journals provide help in decision-making for citations. Respondents give importance to the impact factor journals and they carefully select the sources for citation. A tendency of a citation for full-text available articles was found among Malaysian researchers. They did not show their agreement in citing the sources of those people whom they know. Tenopir et al. (2011) identified characteristics that researchers of 12 countries prefer while selecting articles for reading. High-ranked characteristics were the topic of the article, online accessibility, the source of the article, and journal-title. Other characteristics were the author’s reputation, publisher, and institution.

Previous literature argued three approaches of motivation in citation behavior. “Normative Theory” describes that quality of contents determines citation behavior. The length of an article, the popularity of the topic, and the collaborative degree are the factors for quality. The second approach is the “social constructive approach” which focused on author, article, and journal-related factors. The third approach is the “time-dependent approach” which argues that citation rate depends upon publication time since the article is published (Lee and Choi, 2013; Peng and Zhu, 2012). Bornmann and Daniel (2008) in their research paper review the research literature published on citing behavior of researchers. The study shows that there is an association between citation to scholarly work and other factors like rewards, honor, research grants, peer judgments, academic ranks, quality and prestige of journals, etc. that affect the research process. This research shows that it is very difficult to measure the citing behavior of a researcher as to what to cite or not to cite. The motivation is greatly affected by the language/cultural barriers and other social networks depending upon the intellectual and practical environment. According to the American Psychological Association (2004), “give credit where credit is due by indicating the sections of text in their published document that have been influenced by reception of other publication.” Case and Higgins (2000) carried out a study to investigate the reasons of authors’ motivation for citing a particular document/reference in the field of communication. High ranked reasons were: “this reference review prior work in the area,” followed by “this reference is ‘concept maker’—it represents a genre of study or a particular concept in the field.” Whereas “to promote the authority of one’s work,” and “negative citations” were fairly/relatively common reasons for citation.

Methodology

A quantitative study based on a survey method was conducted to examine the citation practices about the citing behavior of novice LIS researchers who have been studying or completed their research degrees (MPhil and PhD) from the Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab Lahore-Pakistan since 2008. A questionnaire survey was conducted in July 2020. A questionnaire-based on (Abdullah et al., 2016; Vinkler, 1987) already tested and developed by CIBER’ exploratory research was adapted with some minor changes as per the local need, after getting prior authors’ permissions. The leading research degree program, MPhil (18 years) and PhD, in LIS was started in 2005 at the University of the Punjab, Lahore. It was according to HEC of Pakistan criteria and awarded the degree to its first batch of MPhil in 2008.

The questionnaire was mailed to all 120 research students/graduates from the Institute of Information Management. Authors received (N = 110) responses with a 92% response rate. Data was also collected through an online survey link. The authors made every possible effort (such as making phone calls, contacting the respondents through social media, that is, Facebook, WhatsApp, MSN Messenger, etc.) to get maximum responses from LIS researchers. Citation behavior was measured with the self-perception of LIS research students’ citation practices, citation motivation and quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources. This target population was instructed regarding research and citation practices in their coursework.

Data were analyzed in SPSS and descriptive statistics were applied to know the frequency and percentage of personal factors. The mean score of citation behavior of LIS researchers was also measured through descriptive analysis. Inferential statistics (multiple regressions and one-way ANOVA) was applied to know the effect of personal variables (independent variables) on citation behavior (dependent variables). Figure 1 shows dependent and independent variables.

Figure 1.

Independent and dependent variables.

Findings and interpretation

General information

Data analysis revealed that the majority of the researchers were males 60 (54%), and female respondents were 50 (46%). The majority of researchers’ age was between 25 and 30, 35 (32%) proceeded by the age group of 31–35, 27(25%), and 36–40, 21 (19%). A lesser number of researchers fell in the age bracket of 41–45, 19 (17%) and 46 and above, 8 (7%) (Table 1).

Table 1.

General information = 110.

Category	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	60	54
Female	50	46
Age
25–30	35	32
31–35	27	25
36–40	21	19
41–45	19	17
46 and above	8	7
Qualification
MPhil	53	48
PhD	13	12
Both	5	5
PhD in progress	23	21
MPhil in progress	16	15
Publications
None	60	55
1–5	29	26
6–10	10	9
11–15	2	2
16 and above	9	8

Data analysis regarding the qualification of researchers showed that the majority of respondents were MPhil 53 (48%) degree holders and 23 (21%) respondents were with PhD degrees in progress. MPhil in progress researchers were 16 (15%) and the percentage of researchers was less who had completed both of their degrees 5 (5%). The majority of researchers 60 (55%) had no publication and a few researchers 9 (8%) had 16 or more publications. Only 2 (2%) researchers had 11–15 publications (Table 1).

Citation practices

The data analysis of citation practices of LIS researchers showed the preferences of citation practices on a five-point Likert scale. Data analysis showed that researchers prefer to cite recent sources (M = 4.45), prefer to cite the article/s written by reputable authors in the discipline (M = 4.15), prefer to cite highly cited sources (M = 3.92), prefer to cite the articles with high-quality references (M = 3.92), prefer to cite first information sources (M = 3.76), and prefer to cite paper/s mentioned by reviewers (M = 3.59) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Citation practices of MPhil and PhD researchers (n = 110).

While writing the research paper/article/thesis etc. you would prefer to cite. . .	Mean	SD
the most recent source published on a topic	4.45	0.711
the articles written by reputable authors in the discipline.	4.15	0.732
the most highly cited information sources.	3.92	0.920
the articles with high quality references.	3.92	0.858
the first information source published on a topic.	3.76	0.898
the paper/s mentioned by reviewers to increase chances of acceptance.	3.59	0.961
the paper/s in the journal to which an article is submitted for publication to increase chances of acceptance.	3.46	1.020
the published version of record, but reading another version found on the open web	3.25	0.851
the non-peer reviewed sources (e.g. personal correspondence, newspaper articles, blogs, tweets) written by reputable authors in the discipline.	2.99	1.009
only journals from subscribed databases.	2.82	1.042
a pre-print which has not yet been accepted by a journal.	2.81	0.943
If possible, only sources published in developed countries.	2.69	0.965
If possible, only sources published by Pakistani authors.	2.52	1.020

Scale: 1 – Strongly disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – Neutral; 4 – Agree; 5 – Strongly agree.

Respondents give their opinion as “neutral” on citations practices such as citation of non-peer-reviewed sources (M = 2.99), cite only journals from subscribed databases (M = 2.82), cite only journals from subscribed databases (M = 2.82), cite a pre-print before acceptance(M = 2.81), cite sources published in developed countries (M = 2.69), and cite sources published by Pakistani authors(M = 2.52) (Table 2).

Citation motivation

Data analysis in Table 3 showed the mean value of citation motivation that ranged from “neutral” to “agree.” LIS researchers agreed that they have no problem citing an article published in an open-access journal of peer-reviewed (M = 4.34) and reputable publisher (M = 4.18). Researchers also agreed that citation is truly needed for the understanding of the research (M = 4.26), citation supports literature review (M = 4.10), confirms and supports my paper (M = 4.10), and cited work is published in impact factor journal (M = 4.08).

Table 3.

Citation motivation of MPhil and PhD researchers (n = 110).

The particular paper was cited because . . .	Mean	SD
I have no problem to cite an article published in an open access journal if it has been properly peer reviewed.	4.34	0.66
Citation is truly needed for the understanding of the research.	4.26	0.68
An article published in an open access journal of a reputable publisher.	4.18	0.75
Citation in review of literature is given due to background and completeness of the study.	4.10	0.63
The cited work confirms, supports the results in my paper.	4.10	0.75
The cited work is published in impact factor journal.	4.08	0.83
Cited work reviews prior work in this area.	3.95	0.70
I have the tendency to cite an article published in HEC recognized Journals	3.92	0.96
It represents a genre of studies, or a particular concept in the field.	3.88	0.71
A significant part of the cited work (theory, measuring methods) is utilized.	3.76	0.80
A minor portion of the cited work (part of a methodology) is utilized.	3.55	0.76
Prestige, reputation of source/authors caused me to cite it.	3.47	0.94
My work is based entirely on the cited work.	3.25	1.04
The paper is my own, and I want to make publicity to it by citing.	3.22	1.05

Scale: 1 – Strongly disagree; 2– Disagree; 3 – Neutral; 4 – Agree; 5 – Strongly agree.

Researchers are also motivated because cited work reviews prior work in this area (M = 3.95), it represents a genre of studies, or a particular concept in the field (M = 3.88), and a significant part of the cited work (theory, measuring methods) is utilized (M = 3.76). Citation motivation that showed “neutral” opinion of LIS researcher included: prestige, the reputation of source/authors persuading one to cite it (M = 3.47), ones work is based entirely on the cited work (M = 3.25), the paper is one’s own, and one wants to add publicity to it by citations. (M = 3.22).

Perceived quality and trustworthiness of cited sources

Data were analyzed to measure, how novice LIS researchers perceived the quality and trustworthiness of cited resources. Researchers agreed that they were very careful with the selection of sources they cite (M = 4.19), they tended to cite articles with full-text available online(M = 4.09), open access journals helped them in deciding to cite articles related to their research (M = 3.84), from a trusted perspective they were more open to what they read than what they cite (M = 3.77), and the references that they cited might ease the process of acceptance of their article (M = 3.76). Respondents give their opinion as “neutral” regarding Social media mentions/likes are indications of popularity only, not quality and credibility (M = 3.34), usage metrics are indications of popularity only, not quality and credibility (M = 3.17) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Perceived quality and trustworthiness of cited sources (n = 110).

Statements	Mean	SD
I am very careful with the selection of sources I cite.	4.19	0.760
I have the tendency to cite articles with the full-text available online.	4.09	0.904
Open access journals help me in making decision to cite relevant articles.	3.84	0.894
From a trust perspective I am more easy-going in what I read than what I cite.	3.77	0.797
The references that I cite may ease the process of acceptance of my article.	3.76	0.823
Social media likes are indications of popularity only, not quality and credibility.	3.34	1.144
I only cite conference proceedings if there is no other alternative because the work there is still speculative, and, as such, a little unreliable.	3.20	0.917
Usage metrics are indications of popularity only, not quality and credibility.	3.17	0.947
Tend to cite people I know because I trust them.	2.95	1.095
I tend to check the originality of a paper for plagiarism before making cite it.	2.80	1.164
I cite journals that previously published my articles.	2.79	1.093
The ease of availability of a source is more important than its quality.	2.66	1.144
I do not cite articles published in Open Access journals due to low quality.	2.40	1.102

Scale: 1 – Strongly disagree; 2 – Disagree; 3 – Neutral; 4 – Agree; 5 – Strongly agree.

Researchers also have a neutral opinion regarding citing people they know because they trust them (M = 2.95), citing those journals that previously published their articles (M = 2.79), and the ease of availability of a source is more important than its quality (M = 2.66). Respondents disagree in not citing articles published in open access journals due to low quality (M = 2.40) (Table 4).

Factors affecting citation behavior of novice LIS researchers

This section presents the effect of personal factors such as gender, age, qualification, and the number of publications on citation behavior of novice researchers in terms of citation practices, citation motivation, perceived quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources. Multiple regression analysis in Table 5 showed that gender (β = 0.28, p = 0.810), age (β = −0.08, p = 0.483), qualification (β = −0.54, p = 0.632), and number of publications (β = 0.01, p = 0.892) did not significantly predict citation practices.

Table 5.

Factors affecting citation behavior (ordinal regression analysis).

Variables	Citation practices estimates	Citation motivation estimates	Perceived quality and trustworthiness estimates
Gender
Male = 1	0.209	–0.014	1.123^§
Female = 2
Age
25–30	1.272	0.072	1.942^§
31–35	1.533	0.217	1.663^†
36–40	0.951	–0.024	2.084^§
41–45	0.635	–0.815	1.966^§
46 and above
Qualification
MPhil	0.467	–0.596	1.335^§
PhD	–0.422	–0.808	–1.550^†
Both	0.012	–1.057	–0.213
PhD in progress	0.211	–0.471	0.213
MPhil in progress
Publications
None	–0.525	–0.484	1.190
0–5	–0.688	–0.241	1.587^†
6–10	–0.051	0.078	0.582
11–15	0.180	0.309	2.060
16 and above

Dependent variables (citation practices, citation motivation, and perceived quality) are consisted of five-point scale, from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”

†

Significant at 0.05.

Significant at 0.01.

Gender (β = 0.02, p = 0.869), age (β = 0.02, p = 0.839), and publications (β = 0.13, p = 0.253) did not significantly predict citation motivation. However, qualification (β = 0.27, p = 0.020) significantly predicted citation motivation.

Gender (β = −0.08, p = 0.474) did not predict trustworthiness but age (β = −0.22, p = 0.050), qualification (β = −0.28, p = 0.011), and publications (β = −0.34, p = 0.002) significantly predicted trustworthiness.

Magnitude of the relationship between variables

The magnitude of the relationship was measured by applying one-way ANOVA. The magnitude was measured of those variables which significantly predicted dependent variables in Table 5.

Citation motivation

The mean score of qualification of researchers in respect of citation motivation was according to the following order: MPhil in progress (M = 3.982, SD = 0.372), PhD in progress (M = 3.888, SD = 0.401), MPhil (M = 3.839, SD = 0.424), PhD (M = 3.796, SD = 0.438), and both MPhil and PhD degree holders (M = 3.771, SD = 0.382).

Trustworthiness

Regarding the age of researchers, those who aged between 25 and 30 (M = 3.404, SD = 0.480) were more careful as compared to other age groups 31–35 (M = 3.373, SD = 0.461), 36–40 (M = 3.260, SD = 0.487), and 41–45 (M = 3.263, SD = 0.474) regarding the trustworthiness of cited sources. Researchers aging 65 and above (M = 2.865, SD = 0.430) were less careful in the trustworthiness of cited sources as compared to other age groups. Qualification of researchers predicted trustworthiness of cited source according to following order: MPhil (M = 3.468, SD = 0.452), PhD in progress (M = 3.307, SD = 0.450), MPhil in progress (M = 3.216, SD = 0.341), both (M = 3.000, SD = 0.445), and PhD (M = 2.863, SD = 0.532). Researchers who had 1–5 publications (M = 3.448, SD = 0.488) were more careful about the trustworthiness of cited sources than other categories of publications. The researchers who had 11–15 publications (M = 3.346, SD = 0.271) were more careful than those who had no (M = 3.357, SD = 0.421) publications, 16 and above publications (M = 2.940, SD = 0.615), and 6–10 publications (M = 2.900, SD = 0.435).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand the citation behavior of LIS novice researchers and the relationship between their demographic variables and citation behavior. Citation behavior consisted of citation practices, citation motivation, the quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources. Four variables gender, age, qualification, and the number of publications were treated as independent variables, and the variable extracted from citation behavior namely citation practices, citation motivation, citation quality, and trustworthiness were dependent variables.

LIS novice researchers preferred to cite the most recent sources and articles written by reputable authors. The findings relate to the findings of an earlier study conducted by Abdullah et al. (2016) which indicated that the researchers preferred to cite “most recent sources and articles written by reputable authors in the discipline.” Another recent study also reported similar findings of the major reasons for trust and authority of cited sources as recently published sources and the repute of the author (Singson et al., 2020). LIS novice researchers also preferred to cite highly cited sources, articles that contained high-quality references, and sources that contained first-hand information. The practice of non-peer-reviewed sources (e.g. personal correspondence, newspaper articles, blogs, tweets) and only journals from subscribed databases were less common among LIS researchers. The findings of earlier studies (Nicholas et al., 2015; Nicholas et al., 2016) are following the current findings. They reported no use of non-peer-reviewed sources.

Regarding citation motivation, a novice researcher has no problem in citing open access journal if it has been properly reviewed. These findings are in line with a previously conducted study by Ameen (2017) which reveals that Pakistani scholars have no problem in citing sources published in open access journals until and unless it is properly peer-reviewed. Arshad and Ameen (2017) also report the use of open access journals among Pakistani academics. Xu et al. (2020) also investigated that “Chinese researchers generally trust OAJs and both read and cite them frequently” (p. 247). Nicholas et al. (2015) argued that “researchers are pressurized by their institutions to publish in peer-reviewed journals” (p. 18). It may be a possible reason to choose peer-reviewed sources for citation. Rowley and Sbaffi (2018) also described that “peer review contributed significantly to the effectiveness of scholarly communication” (p. 1). Novice researchers are also motivated to cite the work published in impact factors journals. An earlier study (Tahamtan et al., 2016) also reported that the impact factor of the journal has an effect on the visibility of the journal “which leads to an increase in its citations” (p. 1213).

Perceived quality and trustworthiness show that novice researchers are found to be very careful with the selection of sources they cite. LIS novice researchers also tend to cite articles with full text available online. These findings are similar to earlier research which indicates that researchers do care about the selection of sources cited and they have a tendency to cite full-text available online (Abdullah et al., 2016). Moreover, researchers have a positive perception about open access journals and they disagree with not citing open-access sources due to low quality. A previous study (Ameen, 2017) also supports these findings. However, Nicholas et al. (2016) have a different position for determining the trustworthiness of sources. They report that Chinese researchers consider reading the abstract as the most important activity for this purpose.

The relationship between personal factors and citation behavior in terms of citation practices, citation motivation, perceived quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources were measured. Figure 2 indicates that gender did not predict any of the variables of citation behavior. The findings of the previous study revealed a contrary position that reported a significant difference between males and females regarding the quality and trustworthiness of outlets (Ameen, 2017). Age significantly predicted perceived quality and trustworthiness.

Figure 2.

Direction of factors affecting citation behavior of LIS novice researchers.

Young researchers were found to be more careful regarding the quality and trustworthiness of cited sources as compared to other age groups. Qualification affected significantly citation motivation, the quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources. Citation motivation was high whose degrees MPhil or PhD were in progress. One possible reason is that they are currently going through the process of academic writing such as completion of their assignments, thesis, and research articles. MPhil degree holder researchers were more careful about the quality and trustworthiness of cited sources as compared to PhD degree holders. There was also a significant relationship between the number of publications, perceived quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources. The researchers who had no publication or fewer publications were more careful than those who had more publications. One possible reason for the more careful attitude of researchers who published less as they were not conversant with the sources. Consequently, they were found to be keener about the quality and trustworthiness of cited sources as compared to those who have published more. A finding of an earlier study (Ameen, 2017) confirms the results that identified significant differences based on publications regarding the quality, and trustworthiness of outlets. A previous study revealed a weak correlation between gender, age of the author, and the number of citations (Tahamtan et al., 2016). It indicated that people did not consider the age, and gender of the author while citing the sources. Recent research revealed that there were no significant differences in citation behavior of faculty members based on gender which confirms the findings of the current study (Singson et al., 2020).

Conclusion

The current study establishes that there is no difference in the citation behavior of male and female LIS researchers in Pakistan. Age, gender, qualification, the number of publications significantly affected the perceived quality, and trustworthiness of cited sources. However, only qualification affected the citation motivation of novice researchers. These novice LIS researchers were motivated to cite open access, and impact factor journals. They preferred to cite the most recent sources, articles written by reputable authors, and highly cited sources.

Findings represented the citation behavior of novice LIS researchers from one of the leading, and highly productive universities in Pakistan. The study should be expanded to the research students/graduates of other LIS schools in Pakistan. There is also a need to address the differences in citation behavior among researchers from various disciplines. To avoid inaccuracies, incompleteness of citations, standardized citation management tools (Medley, EndNote, Zotero) should be followed. Moreover, to develop a strong library collection, preference should be given to core cited information sources that meet the researchers’ scholarly needs. The findings will help in the assessment of the citation behavior of the researchers. The statistical data helps assess the quality, and quantity of research. Suggestions for further study include librarians’ need to organize more information literacy, and orientation sessions to make researchers more aware of information sources available in digital, and print format.

Limitations of the study

Data was collected from the research students/graduates of one school which was purposively selected due to its research outcomes in terms of quality, and quantity. However, these findings may not be generalized to other LIS schools in the country. Moreover, these findings are not related to established senior researchers of the field as the population consisted of those who have been studying or completed their research degrees (2008–2020) from the Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore-Pakistan.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Nosheen Fatima Warraich

Irfan Ali

Author biographies

Prof. Dr. Nosheen Fatima Warraich has been serving as Director Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. She is recipient of Fulbright post doc fellowship in 2015 and ASIS&T new leaders award in 2017. She was Chair, SIG III (Special Interest Group on International Information Issues) ASIS&T International Paper Contest jury 2021. Dr. Nosheen is also the Editor of Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries and Associate Editor of International Journal of Librarianship & Information Science. Her research get published in the prestigious journals and conferences of the field

Irfan Ali is PhD scholar at Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. He is working as librarian at Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan. He did his M.phil in Library and Information Science with distinction. He has published many articles in prestigious journals (WoS and Scopus indexed) and presented papers in conferences of the field.

Dr. Muzammil Tahira is chief librarian and head of libraries at University of Education, Lahore. Pakistan. She completed her master and M.Phil from the University of the Punjab, Lahore and PhD from the University of Technology Malaysia (UTM) in Information Systems. She has served more than 23 years in Library and Information Science in various capacities and well presented at national and international level. She has also served as Assistant Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Malaysia and Department of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore. She has been published in well-reputed journals and international conference proceedings indexed in WoS and Scopus. She is the member of many national and international societies and organization.

Shahzada Nadeem Raza is a Senior Librarian at Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore. He did his M.Phil from Institute of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

References

Abdullah

Nicholas

Badawi

, et al. (2016) Gauging the quality and trustworthiness in the citation practices of Malaysian academic researchers. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries 17: 126–136.

Ameen

(2017) Practices of quality and trustworthiness in scholarly communication: A case from Pakistan. Learned Publishing 30: 133–142.

American Psychological Association (2004) Publication Manual of American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Arshad

Ameen

(2017) Scholarly communication in the age of Google: Exploring academics’ use patterns of e-journals at the University of the Punjab. The Electronic Library 35(1): 167–184.

Becker

Chiware

(2015) Citation analysis of masters’ theses and doctoral dissertations: Balancing library collections with students’ research information needs. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41(5): 613–620.

Bornmann

Daniel

(2008) What do citation count measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation 64(1): 45–80.

Case

Higgins

(2000) How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51(7): 635–645.

Garzone

Mercer

(2000) Towards an automated citation classifier. In: Proceedings of the 13th biennial conference of the Canadian Society on computational studies of intelligence: Advances in artificial intelligence, Montreal, QC, 14–17 May, pp.337–346. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Jamali

Nicholas

Watkinson

, et al. (2014) How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences. Library & Information Science Research 36(3–4): 192–202.

10.

Lee

Choi

(2013) Difference in citation rates by subject areas of LIS in Korea. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 50(1): 1–4.

11.

Mansourizadeh

Ahmad

(2011) Citation practices among non-native expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10(3): 152–161.

12.

Mingers

Burrell

(2006) Modeling citation behavior in management science journals. Information Processing & Management 42(6): 1451–1464.

13.

Nadarajah

Kotz

(2007) Models for citation behavior. Scientometrics 72(2): 291–305.

14.

Nicholas

Watkinson

Jamali

, et al. (2015) Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing 28(1): 15–21.

15.

Nicholas

, et al. (2016) Chinese researchers, scholarly communication behaviour and trust. Learned Publishing 29(1): 31–38.

16.

Peng

Zhu

(2012) Where you publish matters most: A multilevel analysis of factors affecting citations of internet studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(9): 1789–1803.

17.

Raza

Warraich

(2022) Citation analysis of information management graduates’ MPhil and PhD theses in University of the Punjab, Lahore-Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries 23(1): 96–117.

18.

Rowley

Sbaffi

(2018) Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline. Journal of Information Science 44(5): 644–657.

19.

Sharif

Mahmood

(2004) How economists cite literature: Citation analysis of two core Pakistani economic journals. Collection Building 23(4): 172–176.

20.

Singson

Sunny

Thiyagarajan

, et al. (2020) Citation behavior of Pondicherry University faculty in digital environment: a survey. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 69(4–5): 363–375.

21.

Stephens

Hubbard

Pickett

, et al. (2013) Citation behavior of aerospace engineering faculty. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(6): 451–457.

22.

Tahamtan

Afshar

Ahamdzadeh

(2016) Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics 107(3): 1195–1225.

23.

Tenopir

Allard

Bates

, et al. (2011) Perceived value of scholarly articles. Learned Publishing 24(2): 123–132.

24.

Tenopir

Levine

Allard

, et al. (2016) Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(10): 2344–2361.

25.

Thornley

Watkinson

Nicholas

, et al. (2015) The role of trust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. Information Research 20: 3.

26.

Vinkler

(1987) A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics 12(1–2): 47–72.

27.

Warraich

Ahmad

(2011) Pakistan journal of library and information science: a bibliometric analysis. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries 12(1): 1–10.

28.

, et al. (2020) Chinese researchers' perceptions and use of open access journals: Results of an online questionnaire survey. Learned Publishing 33(3): 246–258.